The importance of conducting qualitative research alongside clinical trials of complex healthcare interventions is well established. There are various ways in which these two methodologies can be combined in mixed-methods research, including integrating data and/or results from the qualitative and quantitative strands during analysis, using techniques such as joint displays. The potential benefits of integration during data analysis include understanding intervention mechanisms, reasons for variation in outcomes, ways of tailoring interventions to individuals and barriers and facilitators to implementation. However, integration during data analysis may rarely be undertaken in practice, and the extent to which integration can provide valuable insights appears to be underappreciated in the field.

In this review, we aim to summarise current methods of integrating qualitative and quantitative raw data and/or results during analysis in clinical trials of complex healthcare interventions, and the yield of these different methods. Our specific research questions focus on (1) which integration techniques are used; (2) whether the results meet the study authors’ aims and/or answer their research questions; (3) the insights obtained and/or meta-inferences generated from these techniques (classified as either global or specific, and as relational, predictive, causal, comparative or elaborative); (4) any relationship between these insights and/or meta-inferences and the integration technique used and (5) the quality of these studies.

We will systematically search MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Scopus and Web of Science, and manually search reference lists. We will include studies if they integrate, during data analysis, raw data and/or results from a clinical (randomised, non-randomised or single-arm) trial and an embedded or subsequent associated qualitative study of a complex, non-pharmaceutical healthcare intervention (where the effects on a health outcome were measured). Two independent reviewers will screen titles, abstracts and full texts and perform data extraction. We will develop a descriptive account of the data, including mapping the key characteristics of included studies and narratively reporting our findings in relation to each of our research questions. We will explore how integration was undertaken, what insights were obtained and/or meta-inferences generated, and whether and how these relate to the type of integration technique used.

This study does not require ethical approval. We intend to publish our findings in a peer-reviewed open-access journal and to present our findings at national and/or international conferences.

This protocol was registered with Open Science Framework on 22 October 2025 (ref osf.io/yxtb9).

Engaging patients in surgical safety is challenging and has not been thoroughly investigated. Although surgical checklists and other safety protocols have been introduced across various surgical fields, preventable adverse events still occur, highlighting the need for additional research. A Patient’s Safety Checklist (PASC) has been developed and validated for use by surgical patients. Its effect on patient safety and patient outcomes is currently being investigated in a Stepped Wedge Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial (NCT03105713). In connection with this trial, we have examined elective patients’ experiences with using the PASC.

An exploratory qualitative study was conducted based on individual in-depth telephone interviews with 31 elective surgical patients. The interviews were carried out across three Norwegian hospitals including seven surgical specialties. The patients interviewed were part of the trial’s intervention arm and had used PASC. The interviews were transcribed verbatim, and reflective thematic analysis was applied.

Three themes were identified in the data: patient awareness, patient actions and utility value. Patients perceived PASC to increase awareness around surgical information, preparations, what to speak up about and which information to seek and repeat. This awareness led to a series of actions, such as ensuring medication control, optimising their own health, contacting healthcare professionals, asking questions, and for some no actions were needed. Patients perceived PASC to have high utility value for their surgical preparation.

The PASC enhanced patients’ involvement in surgical care and safety by ensuring they received systematic, accurate, clear, and understandable information and instructions throughout the surgical pathway. It is one of the few existing interventions that specifically focuses on assisting patients in preparing for surgery and managing their recovery. Further research is needed on the implementation of PASC and its adaptation to other clinical settings.

NCT03105713.

Tuberculosis (TB) remains a significant public health challenge in many African communities, where underreporting and underdiagnosis are prevalent due to barriers in accessing care and inadequate diagnostic tools. This is particularly concerning in hard-to-reach areas with a high burden of TB/HIV co-infection, where missed or delayed diagnoses exacerbate disease transmission, increase mortality and lead to severe economic and health consequences. To address these challenges, it is crucial to evaluate innovative, cost-effective, community-based screening strategies that can improve early detection and linkage to care.

We conduct a prospective, community-based, diagnostic, pragmatic trial in communities of the Butha Buthe District in Lesotho and the Greater Edendale area of Msunduzi Municipality, KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa to compare two strategies for population-based TB screening: computer-aided detection (CAD) technology alone (CAD4TBv7 approach) versus CAD combined with point-of-care C reactive protein (CRP) testing (CAD4TBv7-CRP approach). Following a chest X-ray, CAD produces an abnormality score, which indicates the likelihood of TB. Score thresholds informing the screening logic for both approaches were determined based on the WHO’s target product profile for a TB screening test. CAD scores above a threshold prespecified for the CAD4TBv7 approach indicate confirmatory testing for TB (Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra). For the CAD4TBv7-CRP approach, a CAD score within a predefined window requires the conduct of the second screening test, CRP, while a score above the respective upper threshold is followed by Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra. A CRP result above the selected cut-off also requires a confirmatory TB test. Participants with CAD scores below the (lower) threshold and those with CRP levels below the cut-off are considered screen-negative. The trial aims to compare the yield of detected TB cases and cost-effectiveness between two screening approaches by applying a paired screen-positive design. 20 000 adult participants will be enrolled and will receive a posterior anterior digital chest X-ray which is analysed by CAD software.

The protocol was approved by National Health Research Ethics Committee in Lesotho (NH-REC, ID52-2022), the Human Sciences Research Council Research Ethics Committee (HSRC REC, REC 2/23/09/20) and the Provincial Health Research Committee of the Department of Health of KwaZulu-Natal (KZ_202209_022) in South Africa and from the Swiss Ethics Committee Northwest and Central Switzerland (EKNZ, AO_2022–00044). This manuscript is based on protocol V.4.0, 19 January 2024. Trial findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and through communication offices of the consortium partners and the project’s website (https://tbtriage.com/).

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05526885), South African National Clinical Trials Register (SANCTR; DOH-27-092022-8096).